5 ms·

It’s what the US Framers referred to as a “parchment guarantee”, nothing more than words on paper.

by bhupy 6y ago

christkv 6y ago
I don’t know that reference but I could imagine it could be rooted in that concern. Probably why they established the three branches in the us.
- bhupy 6y ago
  Yup. I recommend watching Justice Scalia talk about exactly that in this video: https://youtu.be/Ggz_gd--UO0 https://youtu.be/Ggz_gd--UO0
  - refurb 6y ago
    Yup. I thought this is a fantastic summary of the intentional design of the US system. When there is gridlock, that’s a feature, not a big.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  The three branches are the formula, but the real work was in establishing them and making sure they actually work independently. The real work also continued in the many men and women who powered these institutions during the early years and kept true to their purpose. There are plenty of countries that have the same nominal separation of powers, guaranteed by a constitution and a Supreme Court, but where the nominal separation of powers matters little in the face of political games. Hungary and Poland are relatively well known recent examples of countries that have subverted strong constitutional guarantees by inventing exceptions or finding reasons to oust people who are opposing political will for institutional reasons. In more corrupt states it can happen more egregiously. A big problem, especially in young states, is the natural tendency to dislike red tape. Institutional power is all about red tape, though - doing something through the proper channels, with the proper oversight, even if it takes 3 times as long and costs twice as much as it should. This is the biggest hurdle that a young democracy has to overcome - learning to trust the apparent inefficiency of complex institutions (and knowing how to reform institutions that really don't work).
le-mark 6y ago
Just recently almost an entire party was willing to hand it all over to a cult of personality. We can all thank ineptitude and lack of planning it didn’t work, this time!
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  Not just ineptitude and lack of planning. A bunch of judges wouldn't go along, even ones that Trump appointed. In the end, Pence wouldn't go along, and neither would a number of Senators and Representatives. Neither would the governor of Georgia, nor several other officials of various states. Now, you could say "lack of planning" includes not getting the right people in place, and that's kind of tautologically true. But getting the kind of people who will go along with this, in all the necessary places, may be harder than you think. In the end, the system held because the people who believed in the system did what the system said they were supposed to do.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
    An alarming number of Senators have and are still "going along" because they're afraid of the monster they created.
  - refurb 6y ago
    Kind of seems like the system worked like it should?
  - Gibbon1 6y ago
    I knew it wasn't going to work when the NYT's published Senator Tom Cotton's editorial calling for the Army to crush the BLM's protests and the generals pointed told them all to go to hell. Apparently the Army isn't very happy with one political party.
  - vkou 6y ago
    But a large number of senators and representatives did go along. And others didn't, because they thought his cause was hopeless, and they decided that there was more profit in quietly sitting on the sidelines. A more capable, less politically radioactive leader for a cult of personality might have had more success with this. There are a lot of systemic advantages in the mechanisms of how the United States operates, that assist with this sort of thing. (The best example of which is how the losers of an election have a transition period of two freaking months, where they retain all the guns and all the power, and apparently an utter immunity to the rule of law - because the president wields pardon power, and can only be held accountable by a court that's packed with his supporters.) It should go without mentioning, but I will also note that elections aren't a function that optimizes for people who believe in the system.
barry-cotter 6y ago
This would be like the US Constitution, right? The actual structures of power have changed quite dramatically roughly every 70 years in the US, from getting rid of the idea of states as sovereign with the Civil War to gutting the interstate commerce clause of all meaning under FDR or there President arrogating all war making powers to himself against the quite explicit provisions in the constitution. Most recent huge change would be either the administrative state after WW2 or getting rid of freedom of association.
- pharrington 6y ago
  >or getting rid of freedom of association. What are you specifically referring to? I ask, because our constitutional right to freedom of association has not been eliminated in any way.
  - barry-cotter 6y ago
    I invite you to open a business that caters only to black people, or some other protected class then. People in the US are not free to associate (or not) as they see for.

It’s what the US Framers referred to as a “parchment guarantee”, nothing more than words on paper.

by bhupy 6y ago

It’s what the US Framers referred to as a “parchment guarantee”, nothing more than words on paper.

I don’t know that reference but I could imagine it could be rooted in that concern. Probably why they established the three branches in the us.

bhupy 6y ago
Yup. I recommend watching Justice Scalia talk about exactly that in this video: https://youtu.be/Ggz_gd--UO0 https://youtu.be/Ggz_gd--UO0
- refurb 6y ago
  Yup. I thought this is a fantastic summary of the intentional design of the US system. When there is gridlock, that’s a feature, not a big.
tsimionescu 6y ago
The three branches are the formula, but the real work was in establishing them and making sure they actually work independently. The real work also continued in the many men and women who powered these institutions during the early years and kept true to their purpose. There are plenty of countries that have the same nominal separation of powers, guaranteed by a constitution and a Supreme Court, but where the nominal separation of powers matters little in the face of political games. Hungary and Poland are relatively well known recent examples of countries that have subverted strong constitutional guarantees by inventing exceptions or finding reasons to oust people who are opposing political will for institutional reasons. In more corrupt states it can happen more egregiously. A big problem, especially in young states, is the natural tendency to dislike red tape. Institutional power is all about red tape, though - doing something through the proper channels, with the proper oversight, even if it takes 3 times as long and costs twice as much as it should. This is the biggest hurdle that a young democracy has to overcome - learning to trust the apparent inefficiency of complex institutions (and knowing how to reform institutions that really don't work).

le-mark 6y ago

Just recently almost an entire party was willing to hand it all over to a cult of personality. We can all thank ineptitude and lack of planning it didn’t work, this time!

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Not just ineptitude and lack of planning. A bunch of judges wouldn't go along, even ones that Trump appointed. In the end, Pence wouldn't go along, and neither would a number of Senators and Representatives. Neither would the governor of Georgia, nor several other officials of various states. Now, you could say "lack of planning" includes not getting the right people in place, and that's kind of tautologically true. But getting the kind of people who will go along with this, in all the necessary places, may be harder than you think. In the end, the system held because the people who believed in the system did what the system said they were supposed to do.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
  An alarming number of Senators have and are still "going along" because they're afraid of the monster they created.
- refurb 6y ago
  Kind of seems like the system worked like it should?
- Gibbon1 6y ago
  I knew it wasn't going to work when the NYT's published Senator Tom Cotton's editorial calling for the Army to crush the BLM's protests and the generals pointed told them all to go to hell. Apparently the Army isn't very happy with one political party.
- vkou 6y ago
  But a large number of senators and representatives did go along. And others didn't, because they thought his cause was hopeless, and they decided that there was more profit in quietly sitting on the sidelines. A more capable, less politically radioactive leader for a cult of personality might have had more success with this. There are a lot of systemic advantages in the mechanisms of how the United States operates, that assist with this sort of thing. (The best example of which is how the losers of an election have a transition period of two freaking months, where they retain all the guns and all the power, and apparently an utter immunity to the rule of law - because the president wields pardon power, and can only be held accountable by a court that's packed with his supporters.) It should go without mentioning, but I will also note that elections aren't a function that optimizes for people who believe in the system.

barry-cotter 6y ago

This would be like the US Constitution, right? The actual structures of power have changed quite dramatically roughly every 70 years in the US, from getting rid of the idea of states as sovereign with the Civil War to gutting the interstate commerce clause of all meaning under FDR or there President arrogating all war making powers to himself against the quite explicit provisions in the constitution. Most recent huge change would be either the administrative state after WW2 or getting rid of freedom of association.

pharrington 6y ago
>or getting rid of freedom of association. What are you specifically referring to? I ask, because our constitutional right to freedom of association has not been eliminated in any way.
- barry-cotter 6y ago
  I invite you to open a business that caters only to black people, or some other protected class then. People in the US are not free to associate (or not) as they see for.